Friday, July 20, 2007

FINAL ALTITUDE: EIGHT READINGS

Note1: I’m not precisely certain on ground level altitude at the Pentagon, but it seems to be in the range of about 35-40 feet above mean Sea level (ft msl), so to keep the math simple I’ve rounded it to 40. The discrepancy should be no more than five feet from reality.

Note 2: Possible explanation for pressure altitude errors: airspeed at least has been known to effect this reading, and from what I hear, errors in the range of 100 feet or more are not uncommon. This consideration is relevant for the different pressure altimeter readings in possibilities 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7.

1) Official story/physical evidence/eyewitness reports of impact: these multi-corroborated sources indicate the Pentagon attack plane’s belly was about 5 feet above ground, or about 45 ft msl. A majority of the fuselage impacted just beneath the second floor slab, with left engine and perhaps wingtip in fact hitting objects at ground level. (Source: reality or mind-boggling fakery)

2) Specialist’s Factual Report of Investigation (SFRI): Final alt is unsure – seems near zero but the graph resolution is not high enough to read precisely. In general contours it matches perfectly the more detailed Flight Path Study. (Source: straight from NTSB)

4) The PentaCon reading of their eyewitnesses: 100% of their witnesses colse enough to see were convinced of an impact, but various clues indicate a flyover, At least 74 feet above ground level (agl), or 114 ft msl, or the lowest possible level above the roof. The range above that is theoretically limitless, but the lower the altitude, the more likely it could be mistaken by witnesses as an impact with the 73-foot-high building. The higher the altitude, the less sense the flyover theory makes. (Source: Citizen’s Investigative Team)

5) AAl_77.tab, tabular CSV file: final frame altitude of 173 msl, again pressure altitude - sixty feet over the buildin'g roofline. Takeoff alt was at correct elevation for Dulles airport of 300. The CSV file also shows a manual reset of the pressure altimeter at 18,000 feet on descent into the attack, as per FAA regulations, with no apparent effect on recorded pressure alt settings. (Source: NTSB via P49T member Undertow - I need to post my analysis on this soon)

6) The animation, uncorrected, has it 140 feet above ground at the end, somewhat lower at “impact point” if the trends were to continue, but certainly too high to have clipped the poles, hit the generator, or impacted the building. The closeness of this to the CSV indicates the animation was based on pressure altitude – especially with no operative radio altimeter. (source: NTSB via Snowygrouch, then SLOB, Mitch Harrison, etc. – link coming)

7) Read Out 2: An anonymous and irreproducable decoding of the unreadable L3 raw file reveals the nonexistent radio altimeter shows a 270 foot altitude above ground level (agl) at the end. This reading is based on signals bounced from the ground and not subject to pressure alt errors. Radio altimeter is listed in SFRI as inoperative and left blank. Snowygrouch says the reading “had been omitted by the NTSB […] for reasons known only to themselves,” even though it was “precisely the same as the pressure altitude.” It isn’t. (See readings 2, 3, 5, 6) (Source: it’s complicated – the story is here.)

8) John Doe X corrected: When the animation’s final altitude is adjusted to reflect the pressure reset not shown in the animation, the plane is 480 ft msl, 440 ft agl, and 367 ft above the Pentagon’s roof. This is probably too high to have been seen by witnesses at all, and far too high to have been mistaken for an impact. (Source: Animation plus JDX calculations)

Clearly not all of these six altitudes can be correct, though it’s not right to say only one is. Some may corroborate each other, like the animation and CSV, or official and CSV if the alt error was high enough. But to corroborate the PentaCon witness reading, it’d have to be just above the Pentagon roof, and well below that to support the official impact story; there was no high-impact “near-flyover.” It hit low or it didn’t hit.

But this is the only altitude of the eight that also allows the plane to strike the building - matching the (faked?) CCTV video footage, the (fooled?) closest eyewitnesses, the PentaCon’s own (duped?) witnesses, the (planted?) clipped poles and (engineered?) lawn-area damage, the (faked?) 300-foot deep damage to the Pentagon, the (planted?) 757 parts, etc. All these, taken collectively as reality (a leap some are unwilling to take), rule out any altitude higher than the official one. Readings 2, 3, 5, and 6 all could possibly correspond with this, due to the common errors of pressure altimeters, but certainly NTSB data seeming to place the plane well above the roof is problematic.

The higher readings each rule out all of this evidence and each other, and are supported precisely by themselves; another reading with no other backing. There may be more readings yet to come – say, 375 ft msl, or 30,000. That’d be new.

3 comments:

Anonymous
said...

But then the last data point from the FDR is still over 3000 feet away from the Pentagon, making the 273 foot Radar Altimeter reading valid for the pressure altitude back along the approach to the Pentagon. You can see on the same data were the RADALT comes from the DME from DCA places Flight 77 about 3000 feet away, and matches the altitudes on the FDR. If you look at that area 3000 feet from the Pentagon you can match the pressure altitude to the radar altimeter much better. (note 1.5 DME is in nautical miles 6076 feet; 1.5 DME is over 9000 feet)

Yes, that was the gem there but I didn't catch it. The data ends far back from the Pentagon, before the Navy Annex up over higher ground, hence the higher readings. JDX was likely the rightest of all even as he's probably wrong again - this altitude proves nothing escept that data - a suspiciously big chunk of it - is missing.

It's a whole different kind of FDR mystery. One that starts to make sense. Why does PFT not notice when things don't make sense?

The Frustration Ends Here... Or Starts, Depending...

"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers."- Thomas Pynchon, Jr.

"The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments."- Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, section 191

---

The "9/11 Truth" scene has made major inroads on the mainstream American psyche in the last two years. A record number of people now believe the government, at best, allowed the attacks to occur. Personally, I'm convinced the kernel of this is the same deep-seated suspicion I and many others have felt since that fateful morning. But the reason it's coming out in such a flood now has numerous explanations, one of which is the cumulative effect of various alternate theories, most notably the strain spread via the video Loose Change.---It is my opinion that these arguments have swelled the movement for all the wrong reasons. The “hard proof” crowd have claimed to find literally hundreds of “smoking gun” clues left laying out in the open. While some have real validity, many, on closer inspection, are fraudulent. Yet somehow the worst arguments get more air play and capture more attention and so the “Truth” movement has become dominated by the desire not to provide the most rational explanation but the one most opposite to the official story. Beyond providing endless distraction and requiring endless de-bunking (and they keep coming back!), this approach alienates intelligent skeptics, whom we need on our side.---It's not for me to say who has intentionally misled and who is simply wrong, but herein I hope to help break the spell of one of their key arguments – no big Boeing jet hit the Pentagon on 9/11 - in hopes of getting some people off that train before it crashes for good. Luckily others have gone before me, and this once crowded carriage is steadily emptying. Through careful research, I have found as have others that almost all evidence points clearly to a 757 as the attack vehicle, piloted by whatever means, and in the process have exposed a long thread of apparent disinformation running from 9/11 to the present and continuing despite all evidence to the current day.

---Truth is a road, not a destination, and it's much safer to walk.---Please feel free to leave comments. I hope I've convinced, provoked, or otherwise effected people with my words here and would love to see any feedback, positive or negative. You can post anonmymously.---Words about The Frustrating Fraud and its author:

"This site [...] does what few do -- take on the Pentagon no-plane/no-jetliner theory head-on and expose the errors of those promoting it."

"[Y]ou’ve done a nice job on continuing to gather facts and reality based information about the Pentagon attack. Some of the comments gave me a laugh or two as well. You’ve accomplished far more in the past couple years in trying to separate facts from fiction than I ever did with that giant 1.5 million+ reads thread! - "Cat Herder" via e-mail

"Caustic Logic made a sad attempt to neutralize our info by casting doubt on us personally. It's pathetic and obvious. And he's a bad writer too. It's like he is a cointelpro flunkie but he keeps trying!"- Craig Ranke

"People like you and Jim Hoffman are dangerous to the truth. You will calmly suggest irrational suggestions in order that you mold the mind of the reader."- Aldo Marquis

"CL, we know you will never amount to anything more than a trash collecting janitor [...] is there some sort of sanitation website where we can check your credentials as a trash throwin janitor?"- Rob Balsamo/John Doe X